GIFT  or 

C  hTistta^^  Scie-rice.  SocieTvj 
Uiiiver-sifr  of  Cali'fci -nia 


er-sitr 


Christian    Science   Healing 
Not   Medical   Practice 


Judge  Clifford  P.   Smith 


WORKS  ON  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE 

Written  by  MARY  BAKER  EDDY 


Morocco 
Mother  Church 


Pebbled  cloth  covers 

1900.  Paper  covers 

1901.  Paper  covers 

1902.  Paper  covers 


$3  00 


SCIENCE  AND  HE.\LTH  WITH  KEY  TO  THE  SCRIPTURES. 

In  one   volume,   700   pp.      The  original,   standard,   and   only 
textbook  on  Christian  Science  Mind-healing.      Cloth 
Full  leather  (same  paper  as  cloth  binding) 
Morocco  (Oxford  India  Bible  papery 
Levant   (heavy  Oxford  India  Bible  paper) 
Large  Type   Edition.     Leather   (Oxford   India  Bible   paper 
Vest  Pocket  Edition.     Ooze  leather   (Bible  paper) 

German  Translation.      Cloth 

Pocket    edition 
French  translation.    Cloth 

Pocket  edition 

MISCELLANEOUS  WRITING.^.     471  pp.     Cloth 
Morocco  (Oxford  India  Bible  paper; 

Levant    (Oxford    India   Bible   paper) 

THE    FIRST  CHURCH  OF   CHRIST,  SCIENTIST,   .\ND    MIS- 
CELLANY.    366   pp.     Cloth 

Morocco  (Oxford  India  Bible  paper) 

CONCORDANCE  TO  SCIENCE  AND  HE.^LTH.     ^lorocco  cover 
CONCORDANCE  TO  MRS.   EDDY'S  PUBLISHED  WRITINGS 


OTHER   THAN    SCIENCE    AND    HEALTH. 
CHURCH  MANUAL.     Containing  By-laws  of  The 

Pocket  edition       .  .     .        .       ,.       .,      , 
German  Transl? 
CHRIST  AND  CHRl 
UNITY  OF  GOOD 
CHRISTIAN   HEALl 
RETROSPECTION 
UNITY  OF  GOOD.  

Pocket  edition,  TeaTHer  covers 
PULPIT  AND  PRESS.     Library  edition,  cloth.     90  pp. 
RUDIMENTAL  DIVINE  SCIENCE.    Pebbled  cloth  covers   . 

Librarj'   edition 

For  the  blind  in  New  York  point  and  American  Braille  systems 
NO  AND  YES.     Pebbled  cloth  covers.     46  pp 

Library  edition,  cloth 

MESSAGES  TO  THE  MOTHER  CHURCH.     Cloth 

CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  vs.  PANTHEISM. 

MESSAGE  TO  THE   MOTHER   CHURCH, 

ME'^SAGE  TO  THE   MOTHER  CHURCH, 

Mf:SSAGr::   to  the   mother   CHURCH, 

CHRISTIAN  HEALING  AND  THE  PEOPLE'S  IDEA  OF  GOD 

CHRISTIAN  HEALING.     Paper  covers.     20  pp 

THE  PEOPLE'S  IDEA  OF  GOD.     Paper  covers.     14  pp.      . 
POEMS.     79  pp.,  all  of  Mrs.  Eddy's  hymns  and  her  earlier  poems 

FEED  IMY  SHEEP.     Solo 

The  above  prices  are  for  single  copies,  prepaid.     For  quantity 
anil  description  see  price  list  furnished  upon  request. 


2   25 

4  00 

5  00 

6  00 

1  00 

2  00 
1  00 

3  00 
3   SO 


3   50 

1  00 

60 

1  00 

1  00 

32 

50 

50 

32 

55 

1   50 

25 

25 

50 

50 

55 

20 

20 

1   50 

50 

prices 


Address  orders  for  above  works  and  make  remittances  payable  to 

The  Christian  Science  Fublisliing  Society 


Christian  Science   Healing 
Not  Medical  Practice 


[A  paper  prepared  for  Commissions  to  Revise 
Statutes  in  Ontario  and  Ohio] 


BY  JUDGE  CLIFFORD  P.  SMITH 


THE  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  PUBLISHING  SOCIETY 
BOSTON.  U.  S.  A. 


Copyright,  1918,  by 
The  Christian  Science  Publishing  Society. 


/. 


c^ev 


CHRISTIAN    SCIENCE    HEALING 
NOT  MEDICAL  PRACTICE 

CHRISTIAN  SCIENTISTS  have  always 
spoken  of  medical  doctors  with  respect.  In 
the  authorized  literature  of  Christian  Science  it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  an  uncharitable  or  im- 
pertinent comment  on  any  honest  effort  to  prevent 
or  cure  disease.  It  would  be  impossible  to  find 
anything  like  the  abusive  attacks  that  medical 
representatives  have  made  on  Christian  Science 
in  Ohio  and  Ontario.  It  is  necessary  to  say,  how- 
ever, that  the  medical  profession,  or  that  part  of  it 
which  delights  to  speak  of  "cults  and  sects,"  is 
bent  on  getting  a  statutory  monopoly  of  all  serv- 
ices in  relation  to  health.  It  is  attempting  ta 
obtain  the  passage  of  statutes  that  would  ulti- 
mately put  the  holders  of  that  monopoly  on  the 
public  pay  roll  and  compel  all  other  people  to  obey 
their  orders.  In  short  the  medical  profession,  or  a 
certain  part  of  it,  is  determined  to  become  a  ruling 
class  and  to  have  all  other  people  for  its  subjects. 
Proof  of  these  statements  is  not  difficult  to  find 
in  the  pubHshed  proceedings  of  medical  organiza- 
tions.   No  small  amount  of  it  has  been  furnished 

3 

370457 


4  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

by  and  during  the  attempts  of  such  organizations 
to  stop  the  practice  of  Christian  Science  in  Ohio 
and  Ontario.  And  now  that  commissions  to  revise 
the  medical  acts  of  Ohio  and  Ontario  have  been 
appointed,  the  Christian  Scientists  thereof  wish  to 
present  the  foregoing  and  the  following  reasons 
why  the  statutes  to  be  recommended  should  recog- 
nize these  rights:  (1)  freedom  from  any  statutory 
monopoly  of  all  services  for  the  benefit  of  health; 
(2)  freedom  from  any  statutory  regulation  that 
would  be  unreasonable  or  unnecessary;  (3)  en- 
tire freedom  for  the  practice  of  the  Christian 
religion.  Such  rights  are  recognized  by  any  just 
or  wise  conception  of  government. 

Concerning  the  practice  of  medicine,  the  first 
thing  to  be  noticed  is  that  it  is  based  on  diagnosis. 
^*It  is  impossible  to  dissociate  diagnosis  from  the 
practice  of  the  art  of  healing  by  any  physical, 
medical,  mechanical,  hygienic,  or  surgical  means" 
(People  vs.  Jordan,  172  Cal.  Rep.  391).  "This  is 
tJie  most  important  and  difficult  element  in  the 
practice  of  medicine"  (New  International  Ency- 
clopedia, second  edition,  Vol.  VI,  p.  757).  In  the 
case  of  People  vs.  Allcutt,  117  App.  Div.  Rep. 
546,  the  appellate  division  of  the  supreme  court 
of  New  York  declared  that  diagnosis  is  '^the  very 
corner  stone  of  successful  medical  practice." 

This  fact  is  not  denied  by  the  medical  profes- 


NOT  MEDICAL   PRACTICE  5 

sion;  it  is  admitted.  For  instance,  the  Journal  of 
the  American  Medical  Association,  speaking  edi- 
torially in  its  issue  of  April  24,  1915,  said,  ''With- 
out a  correct  diagnosis,  any  form  of  treatment  is 
guesswork  and  unscientific."  This  statement  was 
made  for  the  purpose  of  denying  the  efficacy  of 
any  treatment  not  based  on  diagnosis.  It  was 
aimed  particularly  at  Christian  Science.  Virtu- 
ally, however,  it  admitted  one  of  the  great  advan- 
tages possessed  by  Christian  Science,  as  well  as 
one  of  the  great  disadvantages  and  dangers  of  the 
medical  and  surgical  system,  for  the  fact  is  that  a 
medical  diagnosis  is  about  as  uncertain  as  any- 
thing in  human  affairs.  This  fact  is  easily  proved 
by  the  admissions  of  prominent  physicians. 

In  December,  1913,  numerous  American  news- 
papers published  an  article  by  Roger  W.  Babson, 
a  very  well-known  statistician,  in  which  he  dealt 
with  medical  diagnoses.  In  the  course  of  that 
article  Mr.  Babson  quoted  from  a  report  on  post- 
mortem examinations  made  by  a  committee  of  the 
New  York  Academy  of  Medicine,  in  which 
Dr.  Horst  Oertel,  director  of  the  Russell  Sage  In- 
stitute of  Pathology,  furnished  the  following  per- 
centages of  correct  diagnoses:  ''It  is  apparent  that 
only  a  few  of  the  most  evident  diseases  exceed  75 
per  cent  in  the  hands  of  an  experienced  diagnos- 
tician.    Many  important  diseases  fall  below  50 


6  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

per  cent  in  recognition,  and  some  even  below  25 
per  cent." 

In  November,  1915,  Charles  H.  Mayo,  M.D., 
of  Rochester,  Minn.,  who  is  now  president  of  the 
American  Medical  Association,  delivered  an  ad- 
dress before  the  Chicago  Medical  Society  in  which 
he  said,  speaking  of  one  of  the  best  known  hos- 
pitals: "A  report  from  the  Bellevue  Hospital 
shows  that  in  over  50  per  cent  of  all  autopsies, 
extending  over  a  considerable  period  of  time,  the 
diagnoses  were  incorrect,  both  as  to  medical  and 
surgical  cases."  This  statement  was  reported  in 
the  Chicago  Medical  Recorder  of  December  15, 
1915. 

A  few  years  ago  Richard  C.  Cabot,  M.D.,  of 
Boston,  one  of  the  best  known  physicians  in  the 
United  States,  compared  the  pathologic  conditions 
discovered  by  post-mortem  examinations  with  the 
diagnoses  made  during  life  in  the  cases  of  three 
thousand  patients  who  had  died  at  the  Massachu- 
setts General  Hospital.  These  cases  included 
twenty-eight  diseases,  and  the  percentage  of  mis- 
taken diagnoses  varied  from  five  in  one  class 
of  cases  to  eighty-four  in  another,  the  average  of 
mistaken  diagnoses  in  the  twenty-eight  kinds  of 
cases  being  ^Q.5  per  cent. 

The  comparisons  thus  made  were  the  subject  of 
an  article  by  Doctor  Cabot  in  the  Journal  of  the 


NOT  MEDICAL   PRACTICE  •? 

American  Medical  Association  for  December  28, 
1912,  and  of  an  article  by  Frederick  S.  Lee, 
Ph.D.,  professor  of  physiology  in  Columbia  Uni- 
versity, in  the  same  periodical  for  December  12, 
1914.  In  the  latter  article  Professor  Lee  made 
the  following  pertinent  comment:  ''The  average 
of  mistaken  diagnoses  in  these  twenty-eight  dis- 
eases is  46.5  per  cent,  or  nearly  one  half,  and  this 
in  one  of  the  leading  hospitals  of  the  country, 
where  all  available  aids  to  correct  diagnoses  ought 
to  be  had." 

[  In  the  same  article  Professor  Lee  quoted  Pro- 
fessor Orth,  director  of  the  Pathological  Institute 
in  Berlin,  as  saying  that  "of  all  appendixes  that 
have  been  submitted  to  him  for  examination  by 
conservative  surgeons  with  the  clinical  diagnosis 
of  appendicitis,  as  many  as  17  per  cent  showed 
no  disease." 

'  It  must  be  added  that  the  dangers  of  medical 
and  surgical  practice  are  not  due  alone  to  its  de- 
pendence on  the  uncertainties  of  diagnosis. 
There  are  other  reasons  why  the  people  should  not 
be  limited  to  what  that  system  furnishes,  and  no 
attempt  will  be  made  to  state  all  of  them  here,  but 
the  following  item  is  offered  by  way  of  further 
illustration. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Medical 
Association  in  June,  1917,  Arthur  Dean  Bevan, 


8  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE   HEALING 

M.D.,  of  Chicago,  read  a  paper  on  the  "Problem 
of  Unnecessary  Operations  and  of  Incompetent 
Surgeons,"  a  report  of  which  was  published  in  the 
Journal  of  that  Association,  July  21,  1917.  In 
the  course  of  this  paper.  Doctor  Bevan  said: — 

''This  problem  should  be  attacked  without  any  sen- 
sationalism, certainly  without  any  unnecessary  pub- 
licity, and  should  be  looked  on  as  a  piece  of  house 
cleaning  that  should  be  done  by  the  American  Medical 
Association.  ...  I  believe  that  the  great  majority  of 
operating  surgeons  in  this  country  are  competent,  and 
that  the  vast  proportion  of  operations  performed  are 
necessary  and  desirable.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
who  are  in  touch  actively  with  surgical  therapy,  who 
see  a  large  number  of  surgical  cases  and  who  come  in 
contact  with  a  large  number  of  men  doing  surgical 
operations,  cannot  but  be  impressed  with  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  considerable  number  of  operations  being 
performed  in  this  country  that  are  unnecessary  and 
unwarranted,  and  that  there  is  a  considerable  number 
of  men  operating  who  are  not  qualified  to  do  the  work. 
My  impression  is  that  this  condition  is  due  to  three 
causes, — ignorance,  dishonesty,  and  bad  judgment, 
sometimes  bad  judgment  amounting  almost  to  an  ob- 
session. .  .  .  This  problem  of  unnecessary  operations 
and  incompetent  surgeons  is  a  serious  matter  both  for 
the  medical  profession  and  for  the  public." 

As  conclusions  from  these  admissions  by  promi- 
nent physicians  and  surgeons  and  from  the  facts 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  9 

of  common  knowledge,  the  following  propositions 
are  respectfully  submitted.  The  practice  of  medi- 
cine is  not  safe  and  certain  enough  to  be  a  natural 
monopoly.  If  it  were,  it  would  not  need  to  be  im- 
posed on  the  public  by  statutes.  And  since  the 
practice  of  medicine  is  not  safe  and  certain  enough 
to  be  a  monopoly  by  the  natural  law  of  demand 
and  supply,  giving  it  a  statutory  monopoly  of  all 
service  in  the  field  of  health  would  be  a  monstrous 
violation  of  human  rights.  So  long  as  more  than 
one  system  of  therapeutics  is  known  to  and  pre- 
ferred by  intelligent  people,  they  have  the  right  to 
choose  whichever  system  they  prefer.  Moreover, 
as  the  Texas  court  of  civil  appeals  declared  in  the 
recent  case  of  Waldschmit  vs.  City  of  New  Braun- 
fels,  193  S.  W.  Rep.  1077:  "Religious  liberty  is  a 
fundamental  right,  not  derived  from,  but  pro- 
tected by,  the  Constitution." 

In  this  connection  it  is  to  be  recalled  that  the 
profession  of  medicine  was  just  as  modern,  just  as 
progressive,  and  just  as  scientific,  according  to  its 
claims,  when  it  adhered  to  theories  and  practices 
it  subsequently  abandoned  and  condemned  as  it 
is  to-day.  A  large  part  of  the  medical  profession 
was  no  less  contemptuous  of  nonmedical  opin- 
ions^  no  less  intolerant  of  dissent,  and  no  less  op- 
posed to  Anglo-Saxon  conceptions  of  liberty  when 
medical   practice  withheld   ice  and  water   from 


10  CHRISTIAN    SCIENCE    HEALING 

patients  suffering  with  fever  and  thirst,  and  in- 
stead gave  them  calomel  (that  is,  mercurous  chlo- 
ride, a  drug  obtained  from  metallic  mercury  and 
corrosive  sublimate),  than  a  large  part  of  the  same 
profession  has  been  since  or  is  now.  Who  knows 
but  that  the  present  practice  of  fighting  poison 
with  poison  and  disease  with  disease  may  soon  be 
regarded  as  a  matter  of  equally  strange  history? 

Before  turning  from  the  statements  of  medical 
doctors,  it  will  be  a  pleasure  to  quote  several  that 
confirm  the  propositions  just  submitted. 

In  its  issue  of  June,  1912,  The  Medical  Brief  of 
St.  Louis  said  editorially:  "Only  the  most  settled 
and  established  truths  and  principles  of  action  are 
proper  subjects  for  legislation;  and  everybody 
knows  that  in  medical  science  these  are  exceed- 
ingly few  and  far  between.  Hence,  as  we  have 
said,  there  is  a  strong  element  of  reasonableness 
in  the  appeal  made  to  public  sentiment  by  the 
cults  and  sects  against  the  enactment  and  enforce- 
ment of  medical  opinions  into  laws,  however  well 
intentioned  such  attempts  may  be." 

In  September,  1914,  before  the  Utah  State  Med- 
ical Association,  a  paper  was  read  by  Frederick 
R.  Green,  A.M.,  M.D.,  secretary  of  the  Council 
on  Health  and  Public  Instruction  of  the  American 
Medical  Association.  In  the  course  of  this  paper 
Doctor  Green  said : 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  11 

"Another  error  into  which  we  have  fallen  as  a  profes- 
sion is  the  tendency  to  regard  the  medical  profession 
as  a  divinely  authorized  class,  whose  sacred  and  dis- 
tinctive function  is  the  protection  of  the  people,  either 
with  or  without  their  consent.  It  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand on  what  rational  basis  such  a  belief  can  rest  in 
a  scientific  profession  like  ours.  The  medical  profes- 
sion is  recruited  from  the  same  class  as  that  which 
furnishes  the  lawyers,  judges,  ministers,  teachers,  and 
business  men  of  our  country.  The  men  who  go  into 
medicine  are  neither  wiser,  nor  more  unselfish,  nor 
more  upright,  nor  more  infallible  in  their  judgment 
than  those  who  make  up  any  other  class  of  professional 
men.  Why  should  we  regard  ourselves  as  of  superior 
mold,  or  why  expect  our  opinions  or  views  to  be  ac- 
cepted on  any  different  basis  from  those  of  other  men 
of  equal  intelligence,  except  in  so  far  as  we  are  able 
to  justify  our  judgment?  Yet  too  often  medical  or- 
ganizations, as  well  as  individual  physicians,  have 
taken  the  position  that  they  were  the  courts  of  last 
resort ;  that  it  was  their  special  function  to  dictate  the 
terms  of  public  legislation,  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  public  to  accept  their  decisions  and  acquiesce  in 
their  judgment." 

In  February,  1917,  at  a  Congress  on  Medical 
Education,  Public  Health,  and  Medical  Licensure 
in  Chicago,  a  paper  was  read  by  David  A.  Strick- 
ler,  M.D.,  of  Denver,  president  of  the  Federation 
of  State  Medical  Boards  of  the  United  States.    In 


12  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

that  paper  Dr.  Strickler  described  the  statute  to 
regulate  the  practice  of  medicine  which  he  favors 
as  follows:  "The  theory  is  that  no  one  basing  his 
treatment  on  a  pretended  or  actual  physical  diag- 
nosis should  be  permitted  to  treat  disease  by  any 
method  or  means,  who  does  not  first  show  knowK 
edge  fundamental  to  its  recognition.  A  definite 
distinction  is  made  between  schools  of  physical 
healing  which  base  their  practice  on  physical  diag- 
nosis, and  the  schools  of  spiritual  healing,  healing 
by  prayer,  in  which  no  pretense  of  physical  diag- 
nosis is  made,  but  in  which  the  healing  art  is  prac- 
ticed as  the  tenet  of  the  church.  The  most 
familiar  example  of  the  latter  is  found  in  the  de- 
nomination of  Christian  Science.  A  dispassionate 
view  exempts  its  practitioners  from  the  educa- 
tional standard  of  licensure  applied  to  schools  of 
physical  healing."  Dr.  Strickler  reiterated  this- 
distinction  when  he  stated  his  conclusions  from  an 
experience  of  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century 
with  medical  legislation,  and  one  of  his  conclu- 
sions was  expressed  as  follows:  "That  in  the  pres- 
ent chaotic  state  of  therapeutics,  using  the  word 
in  a  broad  sense,  the  state  is  not  concerned  in  the 
relative  scientific  value  of  different  methods  of 
treatment." 

Coming  now  to  utterances  of  persons  versed  in 
jurisprudence,  including  reasons  given  for  the  de- 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  18 

cisions  of  courts,  it  will  be  orderly  to  mention  first 
that  the  laws  of  England  which  regulate  the  offer- 
ing of  services  to  the  public  in  behalf  of  health 
only  forbid  deception  in  regard  to  qualifications. 
They  do  not  even  limit  the  practice  of  medicine  to 
licensed  physicians  (Halsburg's  Laws  of  England, 
Vol.  XX,  p.  343).  This  fact  gives  special  signifi- 
cance to  the  conclusion  expressed  by  Charles  A. 
Boston,  Esq.,  president  of  the  American  Associa- 
tion of  Medical  Jurisprudence,  as  reported  in  the 
New  York  Medical  Times  of  April  and  May, 
1916.  In  his  address  as  president  of  that  Associa- 
tion, Mr.  Boston  reviewed  medical  legislation  in 
the  United  States,  compared  it  to  some  extent  with 
the  medical  legislation  of  England,  and  concluded 
as  follows: 

"One  cannot  read  such  a  mass  of  legislation  with  a 
view  to  philosophic  criticism  without  reaching  the  con- 
clusion that  much  of  it  is  ill  advised,  emotional,  un- 
wise, ill  considered,  and  unnecessarily  severe.  It 
seems  to  me  to  proceed  upon  a  doubtful  theory,  and 
to  regard  that  as  certain  and  fixed  which  is  constantly 
progressive  and  changing.  It  provokes  the  question 
whether  the  public  need  requires  such  drastic  legis- 
lation when  so  many  of  our  well-inclined,  if  mistaken, 
citizens  believe  they  are  being  oppressed.  If  the  pro- 
tection of  the  public  demands  it,  then  let  it  proceed! 
But  if  the  actual  protection  of  the  public  does  not 


14  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

demand  it,  then  could  we  not  afford  to  be  slightly  more 
tolerant?  Indeed,  is  it  not  possible  to  consider  the 
feasibility  of  the  English  system  of  letting  all  who 
will  run,  but  to  educate  the  public  in  a  knowledge  of 
those  who  have  been  duly  prepared  and  those  who 
have  not.  Personally  I  have  an  open  mind,  and  stand 
for  no  heresy,  schism,  sect,  or  irregular  school.  I  am 
looking  at  the  subject  solely  from  the  standpoint  of 
historic  and  constitutional  criticism.  In  this  light 
it  appears  to  me  that  there  is  much  to  condemn  in  the 
theory  of  our  laws.  I  have  in  mind  the  lessons  irre- 
sistibly inculcated  by  the  illustrations  in  Andrew  D. 
White's  ^Some  Chapters  in  the  Warfare  of  Science.' 
And  I  doubt  whether  the  public  health  requires  the 
legislative  mandate  for  its  protection  to  any  greater 
extent  than  the  public  morals  require  the  establish- 
ment of  a  state  church.  I  see  danger  that  legislative 
interference  may  retard  the  growth  of  medical  science, 
and  I  doubt  if  medical  science  requires  legislative  pro- 
tection to  the  extent  that  it  nov/  demands  and  gets." 

The  Hon.  Elihu  Root,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
of  American  lawyers  and  public  men,  does  not 
need  an  introduction.  The  following  observation 
by  him,  though  made  with  reference  to  American 
government,  is  equally  applicable  wherever 
Anglo-Saxon  institutions  prevail,  and  it  is  perti- 
nent to  the  present  inquiry.  The  following  quo- 
tation is  from  page  540  of  his  published  "Ad- 
dresses on  Government  and  Citizenship": 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  15 

''The  justification  of  all  laws  and  customs  which 
restrain  human  conduct  is  that  they  are  necessary  and 
appropriate  for  the  preservation  of  the  liberty  of 
others.  Whatever  law  passes  beyond  that  limit  and 
seeks  to  impose  upon  the  individual  the  ideas  of 
others  as  to  what  his  conduct  should  be,  whether  to 
subserve  the  interests  of  others  or  to  conform  to  their 
prejudices  or  to  their  ideas  of  propriety  or  wisdom, 
even  though  those  others  may  constitute  an  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  whole  community,  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  principles  upon  which  our  government  was 
formed;  it  is  not  the  just  exercise  of  governmental 
power,  but  is  essentially  tyranny.  The  test  is  difficult 
of  application.  The  incidence  and  the  ultimate  effect 
of  law  are  often  indirect  and  obscure.  They  depend 
on  a  multitude  of  conditions  imperfectly  known  and 
subject  to  controversy.  The  highest  intelligence  and 
the  broadest  knowledge  are  needed  for  the  application 
of  the  test;  but  upon  a  sincere  and  unremitting  effort 
that  it  shall  be  applied  to  every  step  of  the  develop- 
ment of  our  law  depends  the  question  whether 
that  development  shall  destroy  or  shall  deepen  and 
strengthen  the  foundations  of  free  government." 

A  scholarly  lawyer  and  teacher  of  law,  who 
wrote  a  valuable  book  on  an  unusual  subject,  was 
Professor  Christopher  G.  Tiedeman,  and  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  from  Sect.  88  of  his  "State  and 
Federal  Control  of  Persons  and  Property"  is  per- 
tinent: 


16  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

"In  the  practice  of  medicine,  an  attempt  has  often 
been  made  by  the  old  school  of  medicine,  the  school  of 
allopathy,  to  bring  homeopathy  into  legal  disrepute 
and  to  deny  to  practitioners  of  that  school  equal  priv- 
ileges before  the  law;  but  the  police  power  of  the 
state  can  never  be  exercised  in  favor  of  or  against  any 
system  of  medicine.  The  police  power  can  be  brought 
to  bear  upon  quacks  and  disreputable  practitioners, 
to  whichever  school  they  may  belong,  but  when  rep- 
utable and  intelligent  members  of  the  profession  differ 
in  theories  of  practice,  the  state  has  no  power  to  de- 
termine which  of  them,  if  either,  is  wrong." 

When  the  Hon.  Charles  S.  Thomas,  now  United 
States  senator  from  Colorado,  was  governor  of 
that  state,  he  vetoed  a  bill  designed  to  give  three 
schools  of  medicine  a  monopoly.  In  the  course  of 
his  veto  message  he  said: 

*'The  bill,  like  all  kindred  forms  of  paternalism,  as- 
sumes that  the  citizen  cannot  take  care  of  himself. 
The  state  must  lead  him  as  a  little  child,  lest  he  fall 
into  trouble  unawares.  He  must  be  guarded  and 
chided,  limited  here  and  licensed  there,  for  his  own 
protection.  Such  a  system,  born  of  the  union  of 
church  and  state,  crumbles  into  ashes  in  the  crucible 
of  experience.  It  cannot  flourish,  though  disguised  in 
the  garments  of  an  alleged  public  necessity.  The 
privilege  of  choosing  one's  own  physician  is  a  positive 
essential  to  the  public  health.    Yet  this  bill  assumes 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  IT 

to  thrust  the  coarse  machinery  of  the  criminal  law 
into  one  of  the  most  sacred  relations  of  human  life,  to 
drag  the  chosen  physician,  if  unlicensed,  from  the  sick- 
couch  to  the  prison  cell,  and  to  substitute  for  him 
some  one  who,  however  exalted  and  honorable,  may 
not  com.mand  the  confidence  or  secure  the  sympathy 
of  his  patient. 

"These  comments  are  not  extreme,  for  it  must  be 
remembered  that  those  who  believe  in  and  patronize 
the  various  arts  of  healing  that  are  ostracized  by  this 
bill  form  a  very  large  part  of  every  community,  nor 
are  they  confined  to  the  ignorant  and  superstitious 
portions  of  society.  They  number  in  their  ranks  thou- 
sands of  the  most  refined,  intelligent,  and  conscien- 
tious people.  They  recognize  in  many  modern  forms 
of  relief  to  the  suffering  a  religious  or  spiritual  ele- 
ment that  appeals  to  their  best  and  tenderest  sympa- 
thies. The  benefits  they  claim  and  the  cures  they  nar- 
rate are  not  imaginary.  Shall  the  government  enact 
by  statute  that  these  people  shall  not  longer  enjoy 
their  benefits  or  put  them  into  daily  practice?  Shall 
it  officially  declare  these  people  to  be  criminally  wrong 
and  the  three  schools  legally  right?  By  what  author- 
ity does  it  so  declare? 

"A  distinguished  physician  of  Massachusetts  [Pro- 
fessor William  James]  has  recently  declared  with  force 
that  'the  commonwealth  has  no  right  to  a  medical 
opinion  and  should  not  dare  to  take  sides  in  a  medical 
controversy.'  It  would  be  as  consistent  to  take  sides 
in  a  theological  or  philosophical  discussion.    The  one 


18  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

would  be  condemned  by  all  men;  the  other  is  equally 
foreign  to  the  province  of  government." 

It  has  been  said  that  Joel  Prentiss  Bishop,  by 
sheer  weight  of  reason,  was  able  to  do  more  for 
the  betterment  of  American  criminal  law  than  has 
ever  been  accomplished  by  any  other  person, 
hence  his  conclusion  regarding  the  subject  now 
under  consideration  is  pertinent  and  weighty.  It 
is  to  be  found  in  Section  988a  of  '^Bishop  on 
Statutory  Crimes,"  and  is  as  follows: 

"It  is  proper,  therefore,  to  compel  by  legislation, 
and  the  more  stringent  the  better,  all  who  offer  or  ren- 
der services  in  the  way  of  medical  help  to  abstain  from 
every  false  holding  out  as  to  their  education,  compe- 
tency, or  society  connections;  but  not  worthy  to  be 
tolerated  to  preclude. any  human  being  from  proposing 
to  do,  or  doing,  honestly  and  under  no  untrue  preten- 
sions, what  he  can  for  the  sick,  or  a  sick  man  from 
employing  whatever  well-meant  offices  he  chooses." 

Although  American  courts  may  examine  the 
constitutional  validity  of  statutes,  they  do  not  hold 
that  a  statute  is  invalid  because  it  is  unjust  or  un- 
wise; hence  most  medical  acts  that  have  been  at- 
tacked as  unconstitutional  have  been  upheld. 
Nevertheless,  some  of  the  decisions  of  American 
courts,  particularly  the  reasons  given  for  the  de- 
cisions, are  pertinent  to  the  present  inquiry,  and 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  19 

should  be  persuasive  with  legislatures  or  legisla- 
tive commissions.  For  instance,  in  the  case  of 
Hayden  vs.  State,  81  Miss.  Rep.  291,  95  Am.  St. 
Rep.  471,  the  supreme  court  of  Mississippi  gave 
the  following  as  its  reason  for  refusing  to  put  a 
monopolistic  interpretation  on  the  medical  act  of 
that  state:  "The  world  greatly  needs  and  may  de- 
mand that  nothing  good  or  worthy  shall  be  ex- 
cluded from  its  use  or  enjoyment." 

In  the  case  of  Nelson  vs.  State  Board  of  Health, 
22  Ky.  Law  Rep.  438,  50  L.  R.  A.  383,  the  highest 
court  of  Kentucky  was  asked  to  put  a  monopolis- 
tic construction  on  the  medical  act  of  that  state, 
and  its  conclusion  as  well  as  the  reasons  for  it 
were  thus  stated:  "Taking  the  statute  as  a  whole, 
we  do  not  think  that  this  was  within  the  legislative 
intent,  or  that  the  act  was  designed  to  do  more  than 
regulate  the  practice  of  medicine  by  physicians 
and  surgeons.  .  .  .  Otherwise  this  section  would 
be  made  to  include  those  not  provided  for  in  the 
preceding  section,  and  the  effect  of  the  act  would 
be,  not  to  protect  the  people  of  this  state  from  the 
unscientific  practice  of  medicine,  but  to  deny  to  the 
sick  all  ministrations  not  gratuitous,  unless  by 
registered  physicians.  Thus  construed,  the  act 
would  be  for  the  protection  rather  of  the  doctors 
of  the  state  than  the  people." 

In  the  case  of  State  vs.  McKnight,  131  N.  C. 


20  .     CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

Rep.  717,  59  L.  R.  A.  187,  the  supreme  court  of 
North  Carolina  had  to  construe  the  medical  act  of 
that  state,  and  its  conclusion  was  thus  stated: 
"The  state  has  not  restricted  the  cure  of  the  body 
to  the  practice  of  medicine  and  surgery — ^allop- 
athy' as  it  is  termed — nor  required  that,  before 
anyone  can  be  treated  for  any  bodily  ill,  the  phy- 
sician must  have  acquired  a  competent  knowledge 
of  allopathy  and  be  licensed  by  those  skilled 
therein.  To  do  that  would  be  to  limit  progress  by 
establishing  allopathy  as  the  state  system  of  heal- 
ing, and  forbidding  all  others.  This  would  be  as 
foreign  to  our  system  of  government  as  a  state 
church  for  the  cure  of  souls."  ; 

A  later  case  in  the  same  court  (State  vs.  Biggs, 
133  N.  C.  Rep.  729,  64  L.  R.  A.  139),  particu- 
larly the  judgment  of  Chief  Justice  Walter  Clark, 
a  public  man  of  considerable  reputation,  has  re- 
ceived wide  recognition  by  American  judges  and 
legislators.  In  the  course  of  his  opinion  Chief 
Justice  Clark  said:  "This  is  a  free  country,  and 
any  man  has  a  right  to  be  treated  by  any  system 
he  chooses.  The  law  cannot  decide  that  any  one 
system  shall  be  the  system  he  shall  choose.  If  he 
gets  improper  treatment  for  children  or  others 
under  his  care,  whereby  they  are  injured,  he  is 
liable  to  punishment;  but  whether  it  was  proper 
treatment  or  not  is  a  matter  of  fact,  to  be  settled 


NOT   MEDICAL    PRACTICE         .  21 

by  a  jury  of  his  peers,  and  not  a  matter  of  law,  to 
be  decided  by  a  judge,  nor  prescribed  beforehand 
by  an  act  of  the  legislature.  .  .  .  All  the  law  can 
do  is  to  regulate  and  safeguard  the  use  of  powerful 
and  dangerous  remedies,  like  the  knife  and  drugs, 
but  it  cannot  forbid  dispensing  with  them.  When 
the  Master,  who  was  himself  called  the  good  Phy- 
sician, was  told  that  other  than  his  followers  were 
casting  out  devils  and  curing  diseases,  he  said, 
'Forbid  them  not.'  " 

In  the  case  of  Eastman  vs.  State,  109  Ind.  Rep. 
278,  the  supreme  court  of  Indiana  said:  "It  is 
within  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  enact  such 
laws  as  will  protect  the  people  from  ignorant  pre- 
tenders and  secure  them  the  services  of  reputable, 
skilled,  and  learned  men,  although  it  is  not  within 
the  power  of  the  legislature  to  discriminate  in  favor 
of  any  particular  school  of  medicine.  When  intel- 
ligent and  educated  men  differ  in  their  theories, 
the  legislature  has  no  power  to  condemn  the  one 
or  approve  the  other,  but  it  may  require  learning 
and  skill  in  the  school  of  medicine  which  the  phy- 
sician professes  to  practice." 

In  the  case  of  State  vs.  Smith,  25  Idaho  Rep. 
541,  the  supreme  court  of  Idaho  reviewed  the 
conviction  of  an  osteopathic  physician  charged 
with  manslaughter  by  negligence,  whose  convic- 
tion depended  largely  on  the  testimony  of  "regu- 


22  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

lar"  physicians  as  to  what  they  would  have  done. 
Regarding  this  evidence  and  the  theory  of  the 
prosecution  generally,  the  court  said:  ''These  are 
times  of  advanced  science  and  liberal  thought, 
when  every  person  may  think  and  act  for  himself. 
Every  community  has  its  multitude  of  beliefs  and 
modes  of  treatment  of  diseases  and  human  ail- 
ments, and  every  citizen  is  absolutely  free  to  adopt, 
believe,  and  employ  anyone  he  pleases.  If  the  re- 
sults are  not  what  he  would  wish  or  the  rest  of  the 
community  think  they  ought  to  be,  he  can  never- 
theless not  be  hauled  into  court  and  have  his 
method  of  treatment  or  school  of  thought  tested 
by  the  disciples  or  experts  of  some  other  school  or 
belief/' 

In  the  case  of  United  States  vs.  Johnson,  221 
U.  S.  Rep.  488,  as  a  reason  for  rejecting  a  pro- 
posed construction  of  an  act  concerning  the  label- 
ing of  medicines,  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  declared  that  for  the  government  to  estab- 
lish criteria  where  opinions  are  so  far  apart  as 
they  are  with  respect  to  the  curative  value  of  med- 
icines would  be  "to  distort  the  uses  of  its  constitu- 
tional power." 

In  the  case  of  American  School  of  Magnetic 
Healing  vs.  McAnnulty,  187  U.  S.  Rep.  94,  having 
to  construe  an  act  against  using  the  mails  to  de- 
fraud, the  same  court  summed  up  the  reason  for 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  28 

its  decision  as  follows:  ''As  the  effectiveness  of 
almost  any  particular  method  of  treatment  of  dis- 
ease is  to  a  more  or  less  extent  a  fruitful  source  of 
difference  of  opinion,  even  though  the  great  ma- 
jority be  of  one  way  of  thinking,  the  efficacy  of 
any  special  method  is  certainly  not  a  matter  for 
the  decision  of  the  postmaster-general  within 
these  statutes  relative  to  fraud." 

Again,  in  the  recent  case  of  Crane  vs.  Johnson, 
242  U.  S.  Rep.  339,  the  same  court  upheld  the 
medical  act  of  California  against  the  contention 
that  it  is  unconstitutional  because  it  does  not  re- 
quire an  examination  or  license  for  persons  who 
treat  the  sick  by  means  of  prayer,  but  does  require 
examination  and  license  for  other  drugless  prac- 
titioners. The  court  held  that  the  distinction  of 
the  statute,  between  prayer  or  the  practice  of  re- 
ligion and  other  methods  of  drugless  healing,  is 
not  arbitrary  but  is  reasonable  and  valid.  The 
same  statute  was  construed  and  upheld  by  the  su- 
preme court  of  California  in  the  case  of  People 
vs.  Jordan  hereafter  cited. 

In  the  case  of  Louisiana  State  Board  vs.  Char-' 

pentier,  140  La.  Rep. ,  73  So.  Rep.  248,  the 

supreme  court  of  Louisiana  upheld  the  validity  of 
the  medical  act  of  that. state,  and  observed  as  a 
reason  for  one  of  its  provisions  or  exceptions,  that 
"the  practice  of  Christian  Science,  or  the  religious 


a*  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

tenets  of  any  church,  is  a  spiritual  or  psychologi- 
cal matter  which  should,  perhaps,  be  left  to  the 
practitioners  and  their  patients." 

In  the  case  of  People  vs.  Jordan,  172  Cal.  Rep. 
391,  the  supreme  court  of  California  upheld  a 
statute  containing  substantially  the  same  excep- 
tion and  stated  its  reasons  more  at  length,  as  will 
appear  from  the  following  excerpts: 

"Coming  to  the  exempted  class  of  drugless  healers, 
namely,  those  who  treat  by  means  of  prayer,  here  too 
there  exists  an  obvious  ground  for  the  classification. 
The  treatment  practiced  by  many,  though  not  all,  of 
the  drugless  practitioners  is  by  manipulation  of  the 
bones  and  kneeding  of  the  muscles  and  tissues  of  the 
person  treated.  It  is  apparent  that  without  a  proper 
knowledge  of  the  human  body,  its  organs  and  functions 
thereof,  or  lack  of  skill,  grave  consequences  to  the 
patient  might  follow  as  a  result  of  their  treatment. 
Not  so,  however,  as  to  one  who  in  prayer  invokes  di- 
vine power  to  afford  relief  to  one  afflicted  by  disease. 
The  possession  of  the  prescribed  knowledge  and  skill, 
without  which  the  chiropractic,  osteopath,  and  neuro- 
path is  denied  the  right  to  practice  his  treatment,  in 
no  wise  renders  the  prayers  of  one  thus  treating 
bodily  ills  more  efficacious  in  the  curing  of  disease; 
nor  can  it  be  said  the  prayer  of  an  illiterate  person 
may,  in  the  consequences  to  the  subject  thereof,  be 
more  productive  of  harm  or  less  beneficial  than  that 
of  one  possessing  the  learning  and  skill  of  an  educated 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  26 

physician.  To  our  minds  it  is  obvious  that  no  reason 
exists  for  requiring  the  class  engaged  in  treatment  by 
prayer  to  possess  the  knowledge  and  skill  required  of 
others  engaged  in  drugless  treatment.  The  ground 
for  the  classification  is  as  obvious  as  is  the  distinction 
between  physicians  and  surgeons  on  the  one  hand, 
and  drugless  practitioners  on  the  other,  and  as  to  each 
of  which  classes  a  different  rule  applies.  That  the 
legislature  has  the  right  to  establish  such  classification 
and  exempt  one  class  from  the  operation  of  a  general 
law,  where  the  same  is  founded  upon  some  natural, 
intrinsic,  or  constitutional  distinction,  is  too  well  set- 
tled to  require  citation  of  authority  therefor.  .  .  . 

"If  prayer  can  be  regarded  as  practicing  medicine 
and -as  an  immunity,  the  act  allows  every  person — 
man,  woman,  or  child — such  immunity,  and  the  right 
to  pray  for  the  sick  and  afflicted,  and  that  is  the  only 
way  that  disease  can  be  treated  by  prayer.  Whether 
such  treatment  avails  anything  or  not  is  not  for  us  to 
say;  the  privilege  of  practicing  such  treatment  or  such 
supplication  is  granted  and  allowed  to  all.  The  Scrip- 
ture abounds  with  instances  which,  if  accepted,  tend 
to  show  that  prayer  in  the  treatment  of  disease  was 
deemed  efficacious  and  helpful.  In  the  epistle  of  James 
it  is  said:  ^Is  any  sick  among  you?  let  him  call  for  the 
elders  of  the  church;  and  let  them  pray  over  him, 
anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.'  To 
assume  that  treatment  by  prayer  is  less  efficacious  or 
more  dangerous  or  harmful  to  the  subject  of  the 
prayer  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  supplicant  has 


26  CHRISTIAN    SCIENCE    HEALING 

failed  to  devote  two  hundred  and  sixty  hours  to  manip- 
ulative and  mechanical  therapy,  or  has  neglected  to 
study  elementary  bacteriology  for  a  period  of  sixty 
hours,  does  violence  to  all  legal  or  religious  teaching. 
It  is  clear  that  it  was  the  legislative  intent  to  omit 
from  the  operation  of  the  statute  that  class  of  persons 
engaged  in  the  healing  of  the  sick  by  the  instrumen- 
tality of  prayer;  and,  to  our  minds,  it  is  likewise  clear 
that  a  natural,  intrinsic,  and  reasonable  ground  exists 
for  making  the  exception.  .  .  . 

"It  is  impossible  to  dissociate  diagnosis  from  the 
practice  of  the  art  of  healing  by  any  physical,  medical, 
mechanical,  hygienic,  or  surgical  means.  It  is  there- 
fore competent  for  the  legislature  to  permit  only  those 
persons  who  are  proficient  and  who  have  been  found 
to  be  educated  up  to  certain  standards  to  'diagnose' 
ailments.  The  objection  that  those  who  profess  to 
treat  bodily  afflictions  by  prayer  are  not  required  to 
be  proficient  in  diagnosis,  and  that  their  exemption, 
under  the  law,  is  the  extension  of  a  favor  to  them 
which  is  withheld  from  others,  is  met  by  the  obvious 
answer  that  diagnosis  is  no  part  of  such  treatment. 
Those  who  believe  that  divine  power  may  be  invoked 
by  prayer  for  the  healing  of  the  body  believe  also  that 
God  is  all-powerful.  Patients  receiving  their  minis- 
trations know  this,  and  therefore  no  fraud  or  injury 
may  be  practiced  upon  such  persons  by  reason  of  any 
lack  of  skill  by  the  healers  in  determining  the  nature 
of  the  diseases  to  be  treated." 


NOT   MEDICAL    PRACTICE  27 

In  a  decision  which  reviewed  many  cases,  the 
supreme  court  of  Missouri  said:  "In  the  main,  the 
cases  regard  diagnosis  as  the  test  to  determine 
whether  a  practice  or  treatment  is  included  in  the 
terms  ^medicine'  and  'surgery/  This  is  a  practical 
test"  (State  vs.  Smith,  233  Mo.  Rep.  241,  33  L.  R. 
A.  (N.  s.)  179). 

Another  case  of  particular  interest  is  People  vs. 
Cole,  219  N.  Y.  Rep.  98,  a  decision  by  the  highest 
court  of  the  state  of  New  York.  This  decision 
turned  upon  the  construction  of  an  act  purporting 
to  regulate  the  practice  of  medicine,  which  con- 
tained an  artificial  definition  of  that  practice  sub- 
ject to  certain  exceptions.  The  defendant  was 
prosecuted  at  the  instance  of  the  New  York 
County  Medical  Society,  though  it  was  well  under- 
stood that  he  was  practicing  Christian  Science  and 
had  no  intention  of  practicing  medicine  at  all. 
The  lower  court  and  an  intermediate  court  were 
overcome  by  medical  arguments,  but  the  court  of 
appeals  unanimously  came  to  a  decision  that  set 
the  defendant  free.  The  majority  of  the  judges 
rested  their  judgment  on  a  construction  of  the 
statute,  but  Chief  Judge  Bartlett  added  the  fol- 
lowing concurring  opinion:  "I  concur  in  Judge 
Chase's  construction  of  the  statute.  But  I  would 
go  further.  I  deny  the  power  of  the  Legislature 
to  make  it  a  crime  to  treat  disease  by  prayer." 


28  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE   HEALING 

Partly,  perhaps,  because  of  Judge  Bartlett's 
reputation  as  a  jurist,  but  more  largely  because  of 
the  inherent  justice  and  wisdom  of  his  utterance, 
this  opinion  has  been  widely  noticed  and  com- 
mended throughout  the  United  States.  It  has  re- 
ceived extraordinary  notice  and  commendation 
from  many  classes  of  people.  For  instance,  the 
Brooklyn  (N.  Y.)  Eagle  made  the  following  edi- 
torial comment:  "The  court  of  appeals  has  or- 
dered a  new  trial  for  Willis  Vernon  Cole,  accused 
of  ^practicing  medicine  without  a  license.'  As  the 
court  of  last  resort  throws  out  all  the  supposed 
theories  of  law  on  which  Cole  was  convicted,  this 
means  victory  in  the  state  of  New  York  for  the 
Christian  Scientists.  .  .  .  Chief  Justice  Bartlett 
went  further  than  the  majority  of  the  court.  He 
said,  ^I  deny  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  make 
it  a  crime  to  treat  disease  by  prayer.'  Certainly 
the  trend  of  sentiment,  even  among  those  who  are 
not  Christian  Scientists,  is  toward  the  Bartlett 
view." 

The  following  editorial  comment,  with  introduc- 
tory matter  omitted,  was  made  by  Bench  and  Bar 
(New  York),  November,  1910: 

''The  case  of  the  Christian  Scientist  is  radically  dif- 
ferent. He  does  not  operate  upon  the  body  at  all. 
He  even  denies  its  existence.  His  theory  is,  that  dis- 
ease originates  in  the  mind,  and  can  be  cured  only  by 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  29 

treatment  of  the  mind;  and  that  even  the  mental  con- 
cepts resulting  in  what  is  called  disease  are  false  and 
unreal,  and  can  be  dispelled  by  the  apprehension  of 
truth.  A  treatment  based  upon  such  theories  cannot 
result  in  malpractice  upon  the  body;  and  to  a  great 
extent  the  reasons  which  necessitate  the  licensing  of 
the  ordinary  medical  practitioner  disappear. 

"There  remains,  however,  the  argument  from  neglect 
— that  the  patient  may  resort  to  the  Christian  Science 
practitioner  without  benefit,  whereas  his  case,  if  taken 
in  time,  might  have  been  cured  by  more  familiar 
methods.  But  how  could  the  patient  be  forced  to  re- 
sort to  the  established  school  of  medicine?  Again  the 
distinction  in  method  is  of  vital  importance.  A  be- 
liever in  the  use  of  drugs  might  resort  to  some  un- 
licensed quack  or  harmful  nostrum  and  receive  serious 
injury.  In  his  case  there  might  have  been  protection 
in  a  law  forbidding  the  quack  to  practice  or  prevent- 
ing the  sale  of  the  nostrum.  Christian  Science,  how- 
ever, holds  out  no  hope  to  such  a  person.  His  belief 
that  the  seat  of  the  disease  is  in  the  body,  and  beyond 
the  control  of  the  mind,  would  prevent  his  resorting  to 
it.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  patient  did  believe  in  the 
healing  power  of  mind,  and  disbelieved  in  material 
methods,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  legislature  would 
protect  him  by  forbidding  the  Christian  Scientist  to 
practice.  He  could  not  then  resort  to  such  a  practi- 
tioner, but  neither  would  he  apply  to  the  established 
school  of  medicine. 

''The  question  raised  by  Chief  Judge  Bartlett  seems 


80  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

to  US  an  interesting  one,  which  is  worthy  of  serious 
consideration.  It  will  not  arise  in  this  state,  however, 
unless  the  legislature  amends  the  public  health  law 
in  the  particular  which  came  under  consideration  in 
the  Cole  case.  Whether  or  not  the  amendment  might 
constitutionally  be  made,  the  only  justification  for  such 
legislation  is  the  protection  of  the  public  health.  If 
that  is  not  threatened  by  Christian  Science  practice, 
such  practice  ought  not  to  be  forbidden." 

Thirty  American  legislatures  have,  either  ex- 
plicitly or  by  description,  excepted  Christian  Sci- 
ence from  their  medical  acts.  A  table  of  these 
statutory  provisions  v^ill  be  found  at  the  end  of 
this  paper.  Absence  of  such  a  provision  does  not 
indicate  that  the  practice  of  Christian  Science  is 
forbidden,  for  no  such  clause  is  necessary  unless 
the  statute  covers  more  than  the  practice  of 
medicine. 

There  are  three  decisions  by  the  supreme  court 
of  Ohio  that  ought  to  be  known  to  these  commis- 
sions; one  of  them  is  commonly  cited  against 
Christian  Science;  but  when  they  are  considered 
together  they  support  the  view  expressed  in  this 
paper.  i 

In  the  case  of  State  vs.  Liffring,  61  Ohio  St. 
Rep.  39,  46  L.  R.  A.  334,  the  supreme  court  of 
Ohio  said  with  reference  to  an  argument  for  a 
monopolistic  construction  of  a  medical  act:  "The 


NOT   MEDICAL    PRACTICE  31 

result  of  the  view  urged  in  support  of  the  excep- 
tion is  that  by  this  act  the  general  assembly  has 
attempted  to  determine  a  question  of  science  and 
control  the  personal  conduct  of  the  citizen  with- 
out regard  to  his  opinion;  and  this  is  a  matter  in 
which  the  public  is  in  no  wise  concerned.  Such 
legislation  would  be  an  astounding  denial  of  the 
commonly  accepted  views  touching  the  right  to 
personal  opinion  and  conduct  which  does  not  in- 
vade the  rights  of  others." 

In  the  case  of  State  vs.  Gravett,  65  Ohio  St. 
Rep.  289,  55  L.  R.  A.  791,  the  court  held  a  statute 
unconstitutional  because  it  plainly  discriminated 
against  osteopathy.  The  statute  then  examined 
required  a  greater  preliminary  education  for  an 
osteopath,  who  could  get  only  a  limited  certificate, 
than  it  required  for  a  physician,  who  could  get  a 
certificate  for  general  practice.  The  court  said: 
"It  is  quite  obvious  that  this  additional  require- 
ment could  not  have  been  made  of  those  contem- 
plating the  practice  of  osteopathy  because  of  the 
number  and  character  of  the  subjects  upon  which 
they  are  to  be  examined,  nor  of  the  effect  of  their 
certificates,  nor  because  of  any  consideration  af- 
fecting the  public  health  and  safety  which  does 
not  involve  a  scientific  conclusion  adverse  to  the 
efficacy  of  osteopathy.  A  conclusion  of  that  char- 
acter cannot  be  drawn  by  a  body  to  which  legisla- 


82  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE   HEALING 

tive  power  alone  is  given,  and  for  whose  members 
there  is  no  prescribed  qualification  of  education, 
knowledge,  or  intelligence.  Authority  to  discrimi- 
nate against  osteopathy  would  imply  authority  to 
discriminate  against  any  other  school  of  medi- 
cine." 

It  was  for  these  reasons  that  the  supreme  court 
of, Ohio  adjudged  a  statute  to  be  unconstitutional. 
Yet  in  the  case  of  State  vs.  Marble,  72  Ohio  St. 
Rep.  21,  70  L.  R.  A.  835,  the  same  court  declined 
to  find  any  discrimination  against  Christian  Sci- 
ence in  a  statute  that  limited  its  practice  for  com- 
pensation to  persons  examined  and  licensed  as 
medical  doctors.  The  court  said:  "What  Chris- 
tian Science  is  we  know  not.  .  .  .  We  fail  to  find 
anything  in  the  act  that  discriminates  against 
Christian  Science.  It  does  not  provide  for  a  spe- 
cial examination  and  limited  certificate  for  the 
Christian  Science  practitioner,  but  he  may  obtain 
a  certificate  to  practice  medicine  upon  the  same 
conditions  as  any  other  person,  and  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  act  requiring  him  to  use  the  knowledge 
after  he  acquires  it."  i 

Now  it  is  plainly  unreasonable  to  require  Chris- 
tian Scientists,  or  any  class  of  persons,  to  acquire 
knowledge  for  their  practice  that  would  be  unnec- 
essary or  detrimental.  This  point  is  illustrated  by 
the  following  cases,  in  which  the  highest  courts  of 


NOT   MEDICAL    PRACTICE  83 

Massachusetts  and  New  York  held  statutes  un- 
constitutional which  limited  the  undertaking  of 
funerals  to  persons  examined  and  licensed  as  em- 
balmers:  Wyeth  vs.  Board  of  Health,  200  Mass. 
Rep.  474;  People  vs.  Ringe,  197  N.  Y.  Rep.  143. 
A  course  of  study  and  training  in  medicine  and 
surgery  would  not  be  at  all  preparatory  for  the 
practice  of  Christian  Science,  but  would  be  a  posi- 
tive detriment  to  this  purely  spiritual  practice. 
Recognizing  this  fact,  the  court  of  appeals  of 
Georgia,  in  the  case  of  Bennett  vs.  Ware,  4  Ga. 
App.  Rep.  89,  61  S.  E.  Rep.  546,  declared  that  it 
would  be  absurd  to  require  a  Christian  Science 
practitioner  to  prepare  for  and  pass  the  examina- 
tion of  a  medical  board. 

The  supreme  court  of  Ohio's  ignorance  of  Chris- 
tian Science  was  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  its  de- 
cision. It  was  the  duty  of  that  court  to  take  ju- 
dicial notice  of  Christian  Science.  By  other  courts 
it  has  been  regarded  as  a  well-recognized  denomi- 
nation of  the  Christian  religion,  the  salient  facts 
of  which  can  be  readily  ascertained  (Chase  vs. 
Dickey,  212  Mass.  Rep.  555,  567;  Crawford  vs. 
Nies,  220  Mass.  Rep.  61,  64;  Glover  vs.  Baker, 
76  N.  H.  Rep.  393,  416-417;  In  re  Estate  of  Orr, 
Ontario  Law  Reports,  November,  1917).  "Courts 
will  take  judicial  notice  of  matters  of  history,  of 
the  contents  of  the  Bible,  of  the  fact  that  there  are 


34  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

religious  sects,  of  the  creed  and  general  doctrines 
of  each  sect"  (Hilton  vs.  Roylance,  25  Utah  Rep. 
129,  144;  Weiss  vs.  District  Board,  76  Wis.  Rep. 
177,  191).  "We  cannot  avoid  taking  judicial  no- 
tice of  the  fact  that  homeopathy  as  a  distinct  sys- 
tem, or  school  of  medicine,  with  its  professors  and 
physicians,  medicines  and  formulas,  treatises  and 
schools  of  instruction,  and  with  a  fair  share  of  in- 
telligent persons  for  its  patrons,  has  existed  in  and 
been  diffused  through  this  state,  and  in  and 
through  other  states  and  countries,  for  some  time 
past  "  (White  vs.  Carroll,  42  N.  Y.  Rep.  161). 
In  the  same  manner,  the  supreme  court  of  Ohio 
should  have  known  and  should  have  held  that  the 
Ohio  statute  did  discriminate  against  Christian 
Science  by  imposing  an  unreasonable  condition  on 
its  practice.  Nevertheless,  the  failure  of  that 
court  to  hold  the  Ohio  statute  unconstitutional 
furnishes  no  evidence  that  such  a  statute  is  either 
just  or  wise;  and  it  is  probable,  if  not  certain,  that 
the  judges  composing  the  court  were  still  of  the 
opinion  expressed  in  the  Liffring  and  Gravett  cases. 
Of  course  the  supreme  court  of  Ohio  was 
obliged  to  leave  all  questions  within  the  bounds  of 
reasonable  discretion  to  the  legislature.  More- 
over, the  court  probably  felt  obliged  to  assume 
that  the  statute  was  prepared  and  passed  for  its 
ostensible  purpose.    In  other  words,  the  court  did 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  85 

not  feel  at  liberty  to  regard  the  statute,  in  its  ap- 
plication to  Christian  Science  practitioners,  as  a 
mere  device  to  hinder  their  work  by  forbidding 
them  to  accept  compensation  for  it.  The  editor  of 
the  Journal  of  the  Indiana  State  Medical  Associa- 
tion (June,  1917)  stated  what  everybody  knows, 
when  he  put  the  actual  effect  of  the  Ohio  statute 
in  the  following  words:  "In  Ohio  it  is  illegal  for 
Christian  Science  healers  to  accept  compensation 
for  their  work." 

It  should  be  evident  to  all  thinking  people  that 
an  honest  service  does  not  become  illegal  by  rea- 
son of  compensation;  and  the  Georgia  court  of  ap- 
peals held  in  the  case  just  cited:  "It  must  be 
apparent  that  if  the  mere  laying  on  of  hands 
amounts  to  the  practice  of  medicine  in  any  sense, 
it  is  so  without  reference  to  fee  or  reward."  More- 
over, Mrs.  Eddy,  the  Discoverer  and  Founder  of 
Christian  Science,  has  justly  said:  "Till  Christian 
Scientists  give  all  their  time  to  spiritual  things, 
live  without  eating,  and  obtain  their  money  from 
a  fish's  mouth,  they  must  earn  it  in  order  to  help 
mankind  with  it.  All  systems  of  religion  stand  on 
this  basis"  (The  First  Church  of  Christ,  Scientist, 
and  Miscellany,  p.  216). 

With  regard  to  freedom  from  unreasonable  or 
unnecessary  regulation  the  following  propositions 
are  submitted: 


86  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

(1)  Honest  efforts  to  prevent  or  cure  disease 
should  be  regulated  only  when  and  to  the  extent  that 
regulation  is  necessary  for  the  general  welfare. 

(2)  The  general  welfare  does  not  require  regula- 
tion for  any  honest  service  offered  in  behalf  of  health 
unless  its  practice  is  dangerous. 

(3)  If  any  service  for  health  needs  to  be  regulated, 
the  regulation  provided  should  correspond  to  its  char- 
acter. 

(4)  The  practice  of  the  Christian  religion  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  New  Testament  does  not  need  to 
be  regulated  by  statute,  and  even  the  best  statute  that 
could  be  designed  for  this  purpose  would  do  more 
harm  than  good. 

(5)  The  practice  of  Christian  Science  is  the  prac- 
tice of  pure  and  unadulterated  Christianity,  as  this  is 
understood  by  Christian  Scientists,  and  they  consti- 
tute a  considerable  body  of  sincere  and  intelligent 
people  in  many  states  and  countries,  including  the 
province  of  Ontario  and  the  state  of  Ohio. 

(6)  Christian  Scientists  choose  to  depend  on  the 
practice  of  their  religion  not  only  because  they  regard 
this  as  a  moral  and  spiritual  obligation,  but  because 
they  regard  the  practice  thereof  as  safer  and  more 
dependable  than  the  practice  of  medicine  and  surgery. 

(7)  The  Christian  Science  church  now  furnishes 
as  much  regulation  for  the  practice  of  this  religion  as 
the  public  safety  requires.  The  existence  of  this 
church  organization  and  the  safeguards  it  provides 
have  been  found  practically  sufficient  for  the  general 
welfare. 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  87 

For  some  of  these  propositions,  argument  or 
the  citation  of  authority  would  be  superfluous. 
For  the  others,  the  length  of  this  paper  will  permit 
only  a  few  additional  citations.  In  the  following 
cases  the  reasons  for  the  decisions  support  the 
proposition  that  the  general  welfare  does  not  call 
for  the  regulation  of  any  service  offered  in  behalf 
of  health  unless  it  is  dangerous,  and  that  the 
absence  of  danger,  or  less  danger,  may  rightly  dis- 
tinguish one  service  from  another  so  far  as  regu- 
lation is  concerned:  Crane  vs.  Johnson  (hereto- 
fore cited) ;  Ex  parte  Dickey,  144  Cal.  Rep.  234, 
66  L.  R.  A.  92;  Bergman  vs.  Bond,  14  Manitoba 
Law  Rep.  503;  People  vs.  Smith,  108  Mich.  Rep. 
527,  66  N.  W.  Rep.  382. 

In  the  case  last  cited  (People  vs.  Smith)  the 
supreme  court  of  Michigan  applied  the  proposi- 
tion just  cited  concretely  and  emphatically  as  fol- 
lows: '^Unless  the  emery  wheel  is  dangerous  to 
health,  there  is  no  necessity,  and  consequently  no 
power  to  regulate  it."  Such  reasoning  is  entirely 
applicable  to  the  present  subject,  for  Christian 
Science  is  beneficial  to  health  as  well  as  morals; 
and  it  is  not  dangerous.  The  beneficial  results  of 
Christian  Science,  though  not  fully  known  to  all 
men,  are  becoming  generally  known;  and  as 
Charles  T.  Howard,  M.D.,  of  Boston,  said  in  the 
New  England  Medical  Gazette  for  July,  1917, 


88  CHRISTIAN    SCIENCE    HEALING 

"No  one  to-day  denies  that  many  people  whom  we 
doctors  have  failed  to  cure  have  found  benefit 
from  Christian  Science." 

The  following  cases,  all  of  which  have  been 
heretofore  cited  in  this  paper,  support  the  proposi- 
tion that  if  any  service  needs  to  be  regulated  the 
regulation  should  correspond  to  the  nature  of  the 
service:  Hayden  vs.  State;  Nelson  vs.  State 
Board;  State  vs.  McKnight;  Eastman  vs.  State; 
State  vs.  Smith;  People  vs.  Jordan;  Wyeth  vs. 
Board  of  Health;  People  vs.  Ringe;  and  Bennett 
vs.  Ware. 

The  following  cases,  all  of  which  except  the  last 
have  been  cited,  directly  support  the  proposition 
that  the  practice  of  Christian  Science  does  not 
need  to  be  regulated  by  statute:  Crane  vs.  John- 
son; People  vs.  Jordan;  Louisiana  State  Board  vs. 
Charpentier;  People  vs.  Cole;  and  People  vs, 
Vogelgesang,  221  N.  Y.  290.  In  the  case  last  cited 
the  New  York  court  of  appeals,  after  referring  to 
statutes  regulating  the, practice  of  medicine  but 
containing  exceptions  in  favor  of  the  practice  of 
Christian  Science  or  other  religion,  concluded  as 
follows:  "Through  all  this  legislation  there  runs  a 
common  purpose.  The  law  exacts  no  license  for 
ministration  by  prayer  or  by  the  power  of  religion. 
But  one  who  heals  by  other  agencies  must  have 
the  training  of  the  expert." 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  39 

In  the  last  two  cases  the  highest  court  of  the 
state  of  New  York  adopted  a  construction  for  the 
exception  in  the  New  York  statute,  and  for  all 
such  exceptions,  that  limits  them  to  their  proper 
purpose  and  prevents  fraud  and  abuse.  Thus  in 
the  case  of  People  vs.  Cole  the  court  said:  "We 
think  the  exception  in  the  statute  in  this  state  is 
broad  enough  to  permit  offering  prayer  for  the 
healing  of  disease  in  accordance  with  the  recog- 
nized tenets  of  the  Christian  Science  church.  It 
may  be  said  that  if  the  exception  is  so  construed, 
it  will  lead  to  numberless  persons  assuming  to 
cure  diseases  in  the  name  of  a  church  for  the  pur- 
pose of  thereby  maintaining  a  business  and  secur- 
ing a  livelihood.  The  religious  tenets  of  a  church 
must  be  practiced  in  good  faith  to  come  within  the 
exception.  When  such  practice  is  a  fraud  or  pre- 
tense it  is  not  excepted  from  the  general  prohibi- 
tion. When  wrong  is  practiced  in  the  name  of  reli- 
gion it  is  not  protected  by  constitution  or  statute." 

Speaking  further  of  the  same  exception  in  the 
case  of  People  vs.  Vogelgesang,  the  same  court 
also  said:  "The  tenets  to  which  the  law  accords 
freedom  alike  of  practice  and  of 'profession  are 
not  merely  the  tenets,  but  the  religious  tenets,  of 
a  church.  The  profession  and  the  practice  of  the 
religion  must  be  itself  the  cure.  The  sufferer's 
mind  must  be  brought  into  submission  to  the  in- 


40  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE    HEALING 

finite  Mind,  and  in  this  must  be  the  healing.  The 
operation  of  the  power  of  Spirit  must  be  not  di- 
rect and  remote,  but  direct  and  immediate.  If 
that  were  not  so,  a  body  of  men  who  claimed  di- 
vine inspiration  might  prescribe  drugs  and  per- 
form surgical  operations  under  cover  of  the  law. 
While  the  healer  inculcates  the  faith  of  the 
church  as  a  method  of  healing  he  is  immune. 
When  he  goes  beyond  that,  puts  his  spiritual 
agencies  aside  and  takes  up  the  agencies  of  the 
flesh,  his  immunity  ceases.  He  is  then  competing 
with  physicians  on  their  own  ground,  using  the 
same  instrumentalities  and  arrogating  to  himself 
the  right  to  pursue  the  same  methods  without  the 
same  training." 

To  guard  against  misapprehension,  it  should  be 
said  that  Christian  Science  cannot  be  practiced,  to 
any  considerable  extent,  by  practitioners  of  medi- 
cine and  surgery.  The  practice  of  one  is  spiritual, 
while  the  practice  of  the  other  is  material;  hence 
they  are  basically  antithetical.  Both  call  for 
knowledge:  one  for  true  knowledge  of  the  real 
man,  whose  substance  is  Spirit,  and  of  the  divine 
law  that  is  available  through  prayer ;  the  other  for 
the  human  knowledge  of  man  as  a  material  organ- 
ism, and  of  such  semblance  of  order,  or  the  lack 
thereof,  as  can  be  found  in  the  sequence  of  ma- 
terial phenomena.     Christian  Scientists  concede 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACTICE  41 

that  the  latter  knowledge  is  relatively  useful  and 
important,  but  they  also  know  that  it  does  not 
qualify  any  one  for  the  practice  of  Christian  or 
Christian  Science  healing. 

It  should  be  added  that  Christian  Science  is  not 
chiefly  a  system  for  the  cure  of  disease.  The  cure 
of  disease  enters  into  its  practice  to  the  same 
extent  and  for  the  same  reason  that  the  cure  of 
disease  entered  into  the  original  practice  of  the 
Christian  religion.  In  this  and  in  every  respect 
the  scope  and  purpose  of  Christian  Science  are  the 
same  as  the  scope  and  purpose  of  original  Chris- 
tianity. Christian  Science  is  simply  the  restora- 
tion of  the  teaching  and  practice  of  pure  and 
unadulterated  Christianity. 

These  facts  are  gaining  general  recognition. 
Thus  the  Rev.  Lewis  D.  Steckel  said  in  The  Re- 
formed  Church  Review  for  April,  1917: 

"Christian  Science  made  its  appearance  about  fifty 
years  ago.  It  has  by  this  time  found  foothold,  not  in 
every  locality  but  in  nearly  every  country  of  the  civi- 
lized world.  This  it  has  done  not  by  any  spectacular 
demonstrative  means,  but  by  the  calm  use  of  reason 
and  persuasion.  This  is  worthy  of  notice  because 
since  the  reformation  well-nigh  all  new  sects  have 
propagated  themselves  by  means  quite  different  from 
this.  Whatever  else  one  may  think  of  Christian  Sci- 
ence no  one  can  accuse  it  of  any  fanaticism,  or  even 


42  CHRISTIAN   SCIENCE   HEALING 

a  tendency  in  that  direction.  .  .  .  Christian  Science  is 
something  which  the  Christian  Scientists  claim  to  have 
reintroduced  and  rediscovered.  That  they  have  suc- 
ceeded I  claim  is  something  which  can  no  more  be 
successfully  disputed.  If  any  man  still  persists  in 
disputing  it  he  must  be  regarded  as  one  who  is  not 
posted  as  to  the  current  events  of  the  day.  I  put  it 
in  the  form  of  a  reintroduction  and  rediscovery.  For 
nothing  stands  out  more  conspicuously  in  the  days  of 
our  Saviour  in  the  flesh,  and  in  a  few  centuries  fol- 
lowing, than  the  healing  of  diseases.  In  those  days 
the  healing  part  was  an  inseparable  concomitant 
included  in  the  means  of  establishing  the  kingdom  of 
our  Lord.  It  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  a  practice 
once  in  vogue  but  which  by  degrees  ceased  to  be,  as 
well  as  ceased  to  be  believed  in.  .  .  .  Whenever  any- 
thing becomes  so  well  established  and  proven  as  Chris- 
tian healing,  it  should  influence  us  all,  at  least  in  so 
far,  to  take  heed  to  the  apostle  Paul's  advice  to  'prove 
all  things:  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.'  " 

No  legislature  has  ever  enacted  a  law  for  the 
avowed  purpose  of  forbidding  or  even  restricting 
the  practice  of  Christian  Science.  In  Ohio  and  in 
the  few  other  states  where  restrictive  statutes 
have  been  passed,  indirect  means  have  been 
adopted.  It  can  be  said  also  that  every  such 
statute,  in  its  application  to  the  practice  of  Chris- 
tian Science,  has  been  neither  respected  by  the 
public  nor  enforced  by  public  officers.    The  ex- 


NOT   MEDICAL    PRACTICE  43 

planation  is,  that  there  is  a  natural  and  indestruc- 
tible difference  between  reliance  on  prayer,  or  the 
practice  of  religion,  and  reliance  on  any  material 
or  human  dependence,  and  this  difference  is  one 
that  is  acknowledged  and  respected  by  the  best 
people  of  every  community.  Hence  this  distinc- 
tion, even  though  it  has  not  always  been  regarded, 
has  survived  nevertheless;  it  has  continued  and 
will  continue  fairly  and  justly  to  invite  the  recog- 
nition of  all  persons  who  draft,  enact,  or  construe 
human  laws. 

At  the  end  of  this  long  paper  I  wish  to  say,  as  I 
intimated  at  the  outset,  that  the  adverse  comments 
on  the  practice  of  medicine  which  it  contains  con- 
stitute a  very  moderate  and  restrained  selection 
from  among  the  materials  available,  and  that  the 
discussion  thereof  has  been  kept  clearly  within  the 
scope  of  the  issues  raised  in  Ohio  and  Ontario  by 
the  medical  organizations  of  those  states.  Christian 
Scientists  are  not  interested  in  the  imperfections 
of  medical  theory  or  practice.  They  are  interested 
in  the  divine  Principle  of  their  own  practice,  and  in 
perfecting  themselves  for  this  practice.  Moreover, 
they  are  entirely  willing,  and  even  desirous,  that 
all  other  sincere  endeavors  to  promote  human  wel- 
fare should  be  not  only  allowed  but  encouraged. 
Surely  there  is  much  to  be  done  before  all  people 
attain  abundant  and  enduring  life. 


TABLE   OF   STATUTORY   PROVISIONS 

Exhibit  Showing  Where  the  Laws  Regulating  the 
Practice  of  Medicine  Expressly  Recognize  the  Rights 
OF  Citizens  Who  May  Prefer  the  Practice  of  Christian 
Science  or  Other  Religion. 

(Compiled  December  1,  1917) 
Note — ^The   absence   of    such   a   provision   does   not   indicate   that   the 
practice  of  Christian  Science  is  forbidden,  for  no  saving  clause  is  neces- 
sary unless  the  statute  covers  more  than  the  practice  of  medicine. 

Alaska. — "This  act  shall  not  apply  to  .  .  .  the  practice  of 
the  religious  tenets  of  any  church." 

Arizona. — "Nor  shall  this  act  be  construed  so  as  to  discrimi- 
nate against  any  particular  school  of  medicine  or  surgery  or 
osteopathy,  or  any  other  system  or  mode  of  treating  the  sick 
or  afflicted,  or  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  the  practice  of 
religion;  provided  that  nothing  herein  shall  be  held  to  apply 
to  or  to  regulate  any  kind  of  treatment  by  prayer;  and  pro- 
vided further,  that  all  sanitary  laws  and  regulations  regarding 
contagious  and  infectious  diseases,  applicable  to  practitioners  of 
medicine  shall  be  held  to  apply  equally  to  the  practice  of  any 
system  or  mode  of  treating  the  sick  or  afflicted." 

Arkansas. — ^The  State  Board  of  Health  "shall  not  regulate 
the  practice  of  medicine  or  healing,  nor  interfere  with  the  right 
.of  any  citizen  to  employ  the  practitioner  of  his  choice." 

California. — "Nor  shall  this  act  be  construed  to  regulate, 
-prohibit  or  apply  to  any  kind  of  treatment  by  prayer,  nor 
to  interfere  in  any  way  with  the  practice  of  religion." 

Canal  Zone.— (Executive  order  by  the  President  of  the 
United  States.)  "Provided,  That  nothing  in  this  order  shall 
be  construed  to  prohibit  (a)  the  practice  of  the  religious  tenets 
of  any  church  in  the  ministration  of  the  sick  or  suffering  by 

44 


NOT  MEDICAL   PRACTICE  46 

mental  or  spiritual  means  without  the  use  of  any  drug  or 
material  remedy,  whether  gratuitously  or  for  compensation, 
provided  that  such  sanitary  laws,  orders,  rules,  and  regulations 
as  now  are,  or  hereafter  may  be,  in  force  in  said  Canal  Zone 
are  complied  with." 

Colorado. — "Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  pro- 
hibit .  .  .  the  practice  of  Christian  Science  with  or  without 
compensation." 

Connecticut. — "This  chapter  shall  not  apply  to  any  person 
practising  .  .  .  Christian  Science." 

Florida. — (Part  of  an  act  taxing  certain  vocations.)  "Pro- 
vided that  nothing  in  this  clause  shall  be  construed  as  af- 
fecting the  members  of  any  Christian  denomination  who  pray 
for  the  recovery  of  the  sick." 

Georgia. — "Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  pro- 
hibit ...  the  practice  of  the  religious  tenets  or  general  beliefs 
of  any  church  whatsoever." 

Hawah. — "And  further  provided  that  nothing  herein  con- 
tained shall  apply  to  so-called  Christian  Scientists  so  long  as 
they  merely  practise  the  reUgious  tenets  of  their  church  without 
pretending  a  knowledge  of  medicine  or  surgery;  provided,  that 
the  laws  and  regulations  relating  to  contagious  diseases  are  not 
violated." 

Illinois. — "And  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  .  .  .  any  person 
who  ministers  to  or  treats  the  sick  or  suffering  by  mental  or 
spiritual  means,  without  the  use  of  any  drug  or  material  rem- 
edy." 

Indian  Territory. — The  act  of  Congress  which  continued  in 
force  until  the  end  of  the  territorial  government  recognized 
Christian  Science  by  name. 

Kansas. — "But  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  as  in- 
terfering with  any  religious  beliefs  in  the  treatment  of  diseases; 
provided.  That  quarantine  regulations  relating  to  contagious 
diseases  are  not  infringed  upon." 

Kentucky. — "But  this  act  shall  not  apply  to  the  practice 
of  Christian  Science." 


46  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  HEALING 

Louisiana. — "Nothing  in  this  act,  however,  shall  be  con- 
strued to  prohibit  the  practice  of  Christian  Science  or  the  re- 
ligious tenets  of  any  church  whatsoever." 

Maine. — "The  seven  preceding  sections  shall  not  apply  to 
persons  practicing  .  .  .  Christian  Science." 

"Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  empower  or 
authorize  the  State  Department  of  Health  or  its  representative 
to  interfere  in  any  manner  with  the  individual's  right  to  select 
the  physician  or  mode  of  treatment  of  his  choice,  providing 
that  sanitary  laws,  rules,  and  regulations  are  complied  with." 

Massachusetts. — "The  provisions  of  the  eight  preceding 
sections  shall  not  be  held  to  discriminate  against  any  particular 
school  or  system  of  medicine  and  .  .  .  shall  not  apply  to  per- 
sons practicing  .  .  .  Christian  Science." 

Michigan. — "This  act  shall  not  apply  to  .  .  .  persons  who 
confine  their  ministrations  to  the  sick  or  afflicted  to  prayer 
and  without  the  use  of  material  remedies." 

Montana. — "Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  or  op- 
erate so  as  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  the  exercise  of  the 
child's  or  parent's  religious  belief  as  to  examination  for,  or  in 
the  treatment  of,  diseases;  provided  that  quarantine  regula- 
tions relating  to  contagious  or  infectious  diseases  are  not  in- 
fringed upon." 

Nevada. — Act  requiring  medical  examination  of  school  chil- 
dren provides  "any  child  shall  be  exempt  from  the  examination 
herein  provided  upon  written  statement  from  his  or  her  parents 
or  guardian  that  they  object  to  the  same." 

New  Hampshire. — "This  act  shall  not  be  construed  so  as 
to  interfere  in  any  way  with  the  practice  of  those  who  en- 
deavor to  prevent  or  cure  disease  or  suffering  by  spiritual 
means  or  prayer," 

New  Jersey. — "The  prohibitory  provisions  contained  in  this 
act  as  amended  shall  not  apply  to  the  ministration  to,  or 
treatment  of,  the  sick  or  suffering  by  prayer  or  spiritual  means^ 
whether  gratuitously  or  for  compensation,  and  without  the  use 
of  any  drug  or  material  remedy." 


NOT   MEDICAL   PRACl'ICS   ;      ,  ..,   ,  J»7  . 

New  Mexico. — "The  laws  of  this  state  which  regulate  tlie* ' 
practice  of  medicine  and  surgery  shall  not  be  construed  to  af- 
fect or  Hmit  in  any  way  the  practice  of  the  religious  tenets  of 
any  church  in  the  ministration  to  the  sick  or  suffering  by 
mental  or  spiritual  means.  Provided:  This  act  shall  not  be 
construed  to  exempt  any  person  from  the  operation  or  en- 
forcement of  the  sanitary  and  quarantine  laws  of  the  state." 

New  York. — "This  article  shall  not  be  construed  to  affect 
.  .  .  the  practice  of  the  religious  tenets  of  any  church." 

North  Carolina. — "The  provisions  of  this  section  .  .  .  shall 
not  apply  to  .  .  .  Christian  Scientists." 

North  Dakota. — "Nothing  in  this  act,  however,  shall  be 
construed  ...  to  prohibit  the  practice  of  Christian  Science  or 
other  religious  tenets  or  religious  rules  or  ceremonies  as  a 
form  of  religious  worship,  devotion  or  healing,  provided  that 
the  persons  administering  or  making  use  of  or  assisting  or  pre- 
scribing such  do  not  prescribe  or  administer  drugs  or  medicines 
nor  perform  surgical  or  physical  operations,  nor  assume  the 
title  of  or  hold  themselves  out  to  be  physicians  or  surgeons." 

Oklahoma. — "Nothing  in  this  act  shall  pertain  to  any  sys- 
tem of  religion." 

South  Dakota. — Certain  sections  of  the  act  "shall  not  apply 
to  Christian  Scientists  as  such,  who  do  not  practice  medicine, 
surgery,  or  obstetrics  by  the  use  of  any  material  remedies  or 
agencies." 

Tennessee. — "Nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  construed  to 
apply  ...  to  Christian  Scientists." 

Utah. — "Nor  shall  anything  in  this  act  be  construed  to  apply 
to  those  who  heal  only  by  spiritual  means  without  pretending 
to  have  a  knowledge  of  the  science  of  medicine." 

Vermont. — "The  provisions  of  this  chapter  .  .  .  shall  not 
apply  to  persons  who  merely  practise  the  religious  tenets  of 
their  church  without  pretending  a  knowledge  of  medicine  or 
surgery." 


4S  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  HEALING 

Virginia. — "Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed  to  affect 
...  or  to  limit  in  any  way  .  .  ,  the  practice  of  the  religious 
tenets  of  any  church  in  the  ministration  to  the  sick  or  suffering 
by  mental  or  spiritual  means  without  the  use  of  any  drug  or 
material  remedy,  whether  gratuitously  or  for  compensation^ 
provided  sanitary  laws  are  comphed  with." 

Washington. — "Nor  shall  this  chapter  be  construed  to  dis- 
criminate against  .  .  .  any  system  or  mode  of  treating  the 
sick  or  afflicted,  or  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  the  practice 
of  religion;  provided,  that  nothing  herein  shall  be  held  to 
apply  to  or  to  regulate  any  kind  of  treatment  by  prayer." 

Wisconsin. — "None  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  or  the  laws 
of  this  state  regulating  the  practice  of  medicine  or  healing 
shall  be  construed  to  interfere  with  the  practice  of  Christian 
Science  or  with  any  person  who  administers  to  or  treats  the 
sick  or  suffering  by  mental  or  spiritual  means,  nor  shall  any 
person  who  selects  such  treatment  for  the  cure  of  disease  be 
compelled  to  submit  to  any  form  of  medical  treatment." 


m,-m- 


Periodicals  Published  by 
The  Christian  Science  Publishing   Society 

BOSTON,  U.S.A. 


THE   CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  JOURNAL 

A  monthly  magazine,  founded  April,  1883,  by  Mary  Baker 
Eddy,  Discoverer  and  Founder  of  Christian  Science,  and  author 
of  the  Christian  Science  Textbook,  "Science  and  Health  with 
Key  to  the  Scrii)tures."  Official  organ  of  The  First  Church 
of  Christ,  Scientist,  J"  Boston,  Maso. 

Prices  to  all  counii/es:  One  year,  $3.00;  six  months,  $1.50; 
three  months,  75  cents;  single  copy,  30  cents. 

CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  SENTINEL 

A  weekly  periodical  published  every  Saturday  containing 
articles,  editorials,  and  special  information  regarding  the 
Christian   Science   movement,   and   te-stimouials  of  healing. 

Prices  to  all  countries:  One  year,  $3.00;  six  months,  $1.50; 
three  months,  To  cents;  single  copy,  7  cents. 

DER  HEROLD  DER  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE 

A  monthly  periodical  printed  in  German  with  alternate  pages 
In  English. 

Prices  to  all  countries:  One  year,  $2.00;  six  months,  $1.00; 
three  months,  50  cents;  single  copy,  20  cents. 

LE  HERAUT  DE  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE 
A  monthly  periodical  printed  in  French  w^ith  alternate  pages 

in  English. 

Prices  to  all  countries:   One  year,  $2.00;   six   months,   $1.00; 

three  months,  50  cents;  single  copy,  20  cents. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  MONITOR 

An  International  Daily  Newspaper 
Published  daily  except  Sundays  and  legal  holidays.  Adequate 
news    service.     The   various    departments    of   a    modern    news- 
paper.    Unique  Home  Forum   page.     Entire   page  of  editorials 
dealing  with  the  vital  topics  of  the  day. 

Prices  to  all  countries:  One  year,  $9.00;  six  months,  $4.50; 
three  months.  $2.25;  one  month,  75  cents;  single  copy,  3  cents, 

THE  CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE  QUARTERLY 

Published  January,  April,  July,  and  October 
Contains  the  Lesson-Sermons  which  are  read  at  the  Sunday 
services    throughout    the    year    in    all    the    Christian    Science 
churches.     Printed  in  English,  Dutch,  and  German. 
Prices  to  all  '^nunrrips:  r>n*>  vpfir,  sioo:  sins-'ie  copy,  25  cents. 


370457 


O 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


